DNC to Restore Voter Database to Sanders Campaign

[AthenaAwakened]

Bernie Sanders’ grassroots base has just won a major victory in the battle with the Democratic National Committee. The DNC has bowed to demands to give access to the national voter database back to the Sanders campaign.

http://usuncut.com/politics/breaking-dnc-to-restore-voter-database-to-sanders-campaign/

Could this be a game changer?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Two weeks from now it will be forgotten except for a few political junkies.

Tonight, Sanders and Clinton debate.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Tonight, Sanders and Clinton debate.

Ya, same weekend as Star Wars opens. There'll be three people watching this debate.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's intentional. The entire DNC debate schedule has been planned to prevent people from seeing anyone challenge the Hilldebeast.

And it seems most Democrats are falling for it.

 

[untermensche]

That's intentional. The entire DNC debate schedule has been planned to prevent people from seeing anyone challenge the Hilldebeast.

And it seems most Democrats are falling for it.

They are certainly falling for Clinton's worn out shtick.

What anybody sees in that woman is beyond me.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

That's intentional. The entire DNC debate schedule has been planned to prevent people from seeing anyone challenge the Hilldebeast.

And it seems most Democrats are falling for it.

They are certainly falling for Clinton's worn out shtick.

What anybody sees in that woman is beyond me.

She is not Trump. Or Cruz. Or other right winger crazies.... I'll be voting for Bernie. America's only hope.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

That's intentional. The entire DNC debate schedule has been planned to prevent people from seeing anyone challenge the Hilldebeast.

And it seems most Democrats are falling for it.

They are certainly falling for Clinton's worn out shtick.

What anybody sees in that woman is beyond me.

I don't think so

Hear me out now

Outside of middle class to upper middle class white women in Hillary Clinton's generation, you won't find many people on fire for her. You will find people who will be voting for a more liberal supreme court than we have now and against the fundy crazies that make up the bulk of GOP hopefuls, but that isn't exactly the same as voting for Clinton. And that is the problem.

When you are voting for the supreme court, or against someone else, it becomes easier to stay home on election day than if you are voting for someone you feel energized about. Add to that a candidate who looks like she is gaming system (with first the debate schedule and now the database) and it gets even easier to stay home.

And since you already have the most right wing democratic party this country has seen in decades, thanks to the Clintons and the DLC, election day can become down right depressing.

 

[untermensche]

I was talking about Democratic primary voters.

They have a clear choice between a man who represents values from the left, and has for decades, and a woman who authorized GW's invasion of Iraq and set back health care reform 2 decades with her convoluted plan at the beginning of Bill's presidency.

Yet for some reason primary voters prefer the latter.

It's a cult of personality.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I was talking about Democratic primary voters.

They have a clear choice between a man who represents values from the left, and has for decades, and a woman who authorized GW's invasion of Iraq and set back health care reform 2 decades with her convoluted plan at the beginning of Bill's presidency.

Yet for some reason primary voters prefer the latter.

It's a cult of personality.

More like Stockholm Syndrome

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

They are certainly falling for Clinton's worn out shtick.

What anybody sees in that woman is beyond me.

I don't think so

Hear me out now

Outside of middle class to upper middle class white women in Hillary Clinton's generation, you won't find many people on fire for her. You will find people who will be voting for a more liberal supreme court than we have now and against the fundy crazies that make up the bulk of GOP hopefuls, but that isn't exactly the same as voting for Clinton. And that is the problem.

When you are voting for the supreme court, or against someone else, it becomes easier to stay home on election day than if you are voting for someone you feel energized about. Add to that a candidate who looks like she is gaming system (with first the debate schedule and now the database) and it gets even easier to stay home.

And since you already have the most right wing democratic party this country has seen in decades, thanks to the Clintons and the DLC, election day can become down right depressing.

"The supreme court justices they will appoint" is an argument used in the general election when you are stuck with an uninspiring candidate versus the other party's candidate. It is a desperate attempt to rally people behind a compromised less than ideal candidate with many faults in other areas. "At least our guy will appoint better scotus justices than the other guy." Wow, how inspirational. It is a sign that the candidate really isn't any good.

That's what it means in the general election.

How bad is it when it is used in the primary? "Vote for Hillary instead of Sanders because Hillary will make better appointments than the Republican would." Wow, if it weren't for Trump this hag would be toast.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

How bad is it when it is used in the primary? "Vote for Hillary instead of Sanders because Hillary will make better appointments than the Republican would." Wow, if it weren't for Trump this hag would be toast.

Works for me. I'd rather have Hilary appointing Supreme Court Justices rather than that moron Trump or that fool Cruz. Or any of the other GOP cretins running. I want Bernie but if I have to settle for Clinton, so be it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

How bad is it when it is used in the primary? "Vote for Hillary instead of Sanders because Hillary will make better appointments than the Republican would." Wow, if it weren't for Trump this hag would be toast.

Works for me. I'd rather have Hilary appointing Supreme Court Justices rather than that moron Trump or that fool Cruz. Or any of the other GOP cretins running. I want Bernie but if I have to settle for Clinton, so be it.

Yeah, you missed the point. "SCOTUS appointments" is an argument you make in the general, not the primary. The candidate has to be a real stinker when that argument is made in the primary.

So, what about "Hillary will make better appointments than Cruz" makes Hillary better than Bernie?

 

[laughing dog]

Works for me. I'd rather have Hilary appointing Supreme Court Justices rather than that moron Trump or that fool Cruz. Or any of the other GOP cretins running. I want Bernie but if I have to settle for Clinton, so be it.

Yeah, you missed the point. "SCOTUS appointments" is an argument you make in the general, not the primary. The candidate has to be a real stinker when that argument is made in the primary.

So, what about "Hillary will make better appointments than Cruz" makes Hillary better than Bernie?

The realistic expectation that Hillary will make better appointments than Cruz compared to the unrealistic expectation that Bernie will get the nomination, let alone win the election for POTUS.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

"The supreme court justices they will appoint" is an argument used in the general election when you are stuck with an uninspiring candidate versus the other party's candidate. It is a desperate attempt to rally people behind a compromised less than ideal candidate with many faults in other areas. "At least our guy will appoint better scotus justices than the other guy." Wow, how inspirational. It is a sign that the candidate really isn't any good.

That's what it means in the general election.

How bad is it when it is used in the primary? "Vote for Hillary instead of Sanders because Hillary will make better appointments than the Republican would." Wow, if it weren't for Trump this hag would be toast.

Well ... ya.

That kind of sums it up for the Dems (aside from the claim that without Trump, the situation would be somehow different). Nobody's particularly excited about the prospect of her Presidency, but she doesn't have any real competition for the Presidency, so the election is kind of done.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Its all kind of a false dilemma. There is no evidence that supposes Clinton would appoint better Supreme Justices than Sanders, but it is reasonable both Sanders and Clinton will do better in this regard than any of the far right crazies of the GOP.

There is one good thing I will say about Clinton. The far right has been demonizing here for years and her election would cause those sort of right wingers to writhe in sullen hate for at least 4 years, which kind of makes me feel smug and happy to contemplate.

 

[Toni]

I was talking about Democratic primary voters.

They have a clear choice between a man who represents values from the left, and has for decades, and a woman who authorized GW's invasion of Iraq and set back health care reform 2 decades with her convoluted plan at the beginning of Bill's presidency.

Yet for some reason primary voters prefer the latter.

It's a cult of personality.

More like Stockholm Syndrome

It's pragmatism. Clinton is a name brand.

 

[Toni]

I don't think so

Hear me out now

Outside of middle class to upper middle class white women in Hillary Clinton's generation, you won't find many people on fire for her. You will find people who will be voting for a more liberal supreme court than we have now and against the fundy crazies that make up the bulk of GOP hopefuls, but that isn't exactly the same as voting for Clinton. And that is the problem.

When you are voting for the supreme court, or against someone else, it becomes easier to stay home on election day than if you are voting for someone you feel energized about. Add to that a candidate who looks like she is gaming system (with first the debate schedule and now the database) and it gets even easier to stay home.

And since you already have the most right wing democratic party this country has seen in decades, thanks to the Clintons and the DLC, election day can become down right depressing.

"The supreme court justices they will appoint" is an argument used in the general election when you are stuck with an uninspiring candidate versus the other party's candidate. It is a desperate attempt to rally people behind a compromised less than ideal candidate with many faults in other areas. "At least our guy will appoint better scotus justices than the other guy." Wow, how inspirational. It is a sign that the candidate really isn't any good.

That's what it means in the general election.

How bad is it when it is used in the primary? "Vote for Hillary instead of Sanders because Hillary will make better appointments than the Republican would." Wow, if it weren't for Trump this hag would be toast.

You don't get it: People will hold their noses and vote for Clinton because they think she has a better chance of beating anybody from the Republican bench.

I won't do that in the primaries, but plenty of people will. I wasn't a fan of Bill and I don't like Hillary. But if it comes down to Hillary v Any Republican So Far Mentioned, I'll hold my nose, too. The Republican field is just that bad. Maybe if they lose again, they will finally quit trying to out right wing crazy themselves and each other and actually remember that once upon a time, the Republicans had an actual brain.

For the most part, most of the younger people I know will be Sanders supporters. I work with a couple of younger women I know are Hillary supporters.

 

[Toni]

Its all kind of a false dilemma. There is no evidence that supposes Clinton would appoint better Supreme Justices than Sanders, but it is reasonable both Sanders and Clinton will do better in this regard than any of the far right crazies of the GOP.

There is one good thing I will say about Clinton. The far right has been demonizing here for years and her election would cause those sort of right wingers to writhe in sullen hate for at least 4 years, which kind of makes me feel smug and happy to contemplate.

The main benefit of a Hillary presidency.

 

[untermensche]

More like Stockholm Syndrome

It's pragmatism. Clinton is a name brand.

Pragmatism is voting for the person you think supports your positions. That is the only pragmatic way to get them enacted.

What you're talking about is not giving a shit beyond wanting your side to win. And that is not pragmatic at all.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

"The supreme court justices they will appoint" is an argument used in the general election when you are stuck with an uninspiring candidate versus the other party's candidate. It is a desperate attempt to rally people behind a compromised less than ideal candidate with many faults in other areas. "At least our guy will appoint better scotus justices than the other guy." Wow, how inspirational. It is a sign that the candidate really isn't any good.

That's what it means in the general election.

How bad is it when it is used in the primary? "Vote for Hillary instead of Sanders because Hillary will make better appointments than the Republican would." Wow, if it weren't for Trump this hag would be toast.

You don't get it: People will hold their noses and vote for Clinton because they think she has a better chance of beating anybody from the Republican bench.

I won't do that in the primaries, but plenty of people will. I wasn't a fan of Bill and I don't like Hillary. But if it comes down to Hillary v Any Republican So Far Mentioned, I'll hold my nose, too. The Republican field is just that bad. Maybe if they lose again, they will finally quit trying to out right wing crazy themselves and each other and actually remember that once upon a time, the Republicans had an actual brain.

For the most part, most of the younger people I know will be Sanders supporters. I work with a couple of younger women I know are Hillary supporters.

That is another problem for Hillary Clinton. People don't like her. I don't mean the insane obsessive hatred you see on the right, I am not talking about that. I mean she doesn't connect with people. When she tries to do her woman of the people thing, like in 2008 when she went to W.Va. and drank scotch in a bar with who the media had deemed "low information voters," she came off as forced and not natural to the situation. Bill had that whole "I feel your pain" thing going for him. Hillary comes off more like "I am having a pain," or "I am a pain."

And then there was this

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2008/05/desperate-hillary-clinging-to-the-bigot-vote/

That quote hurt Clinton and was probably that last nail in her coffin.

There is this air about her that she thinks she will win simply by being her.

Two months out, maybe less, back in the last election inwhich she ran, she said in an interview with a national news outlet,

"If it's not you, how disappointed will you be?" Couric asked.

"Well, it will be me," she said.

But she said she would stand behind any other Democratic nominee, if it came to that. "We're going to have unified party, behind whoever we nominate."

Clearly, she has considered the possibility she won't be the nominee?

"No, I haven't," Clinton said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/confident-clinton-takes-aim-at-attackers/

A little Humility can go a long way, and she didn't appear to have any.